THIRD CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION. (continued 2)

Mr. Coit moved the previous question. He thought the practice of dangerous consequence. It might produce much uncomfortable proceeding in that House. He was seconded by a number of members.

Mr. Parker felt the highest esteem for the services of the Western army. He was intimate both with General Wayne and General Scott; but he disapproved of the practice upon principle. It was wrong in Mr. Murray to quote the proceedings in the Legislature of Virginia, where the Governor was in authority a mere cipher, because the two cases did not apply. The Federal Government was on a quite different footing, a mixture of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of democracy. The President represented the monarchical part. It was his business to give thanks, if requisite. If he himself was an officer in that army, Mr. P. said that he should be satisfied by the first thanks, those in the answer to the President. He would be hurt by the second as unconstitutional. What if, in the mean time, General Wayne and his army may have committed some error that requires an inquiry, and the House are to go into it with this vote of thanks staring them in their face! It had been said by Mr. Smith, that if we had been sitting in September, when this news arrived, a vote of thanks would have been passed immediately and unanimously. I believe no such thing (said Mr. P.) We should have recommended such a step to the President.

Mr. Giles said, that if there ever could have been any doubt as to the impropriety of the resolution, that was now removed, (alluding to the speech of Mr. Parker.) He thought that the gentleman (Mr. Coit) who moved the previous question had acted from the best motives. Two gentlemen (Mr. Giles referred to Mr. Sedgwick and Mr. Ames) had recommended an appeal to feeling. We are sent here to reason. A gentleman (Mr. Sedgwick) says that he has feelings which he cannot express. Let him strive to express them. It is not expected that a member is to express all that he may feel on every subject.

Mr. Murray said he thought the present resolution proper, unexceptionable, and as the fate of this question would have an effect on the motion for thanks to the militia, which he brought forward yesterday, he hoped it would succeed, and that its mover (Mr. Smith, of South Carolina) would not withdraw it. Gentlemen who are against the vote have talked of precedent. If example would serve their feelings with a stimulus, he would take the liberty of calling their attention to a page he had in his hand, in which they would find that some of our constituents have got the start of us, for the House of Delegates of Virginia had very properly considered the conduct of their Governor (Mr. Lee) in a light which merited their thanks for his acceptance of the command of his fellow-citizens against the insurgents. Mr. M. read the vote from a newspaper, which was a unanimous one. He said he considered this circumstance as extremely auspicious to both votes.

He said he had no objection to consider the practice as founded in principles which would bear examination. He thought it more necessary in the administration of our Government—the great basis of which was public opinion—than in that of any other which he had read or heard of. Here our theories have made a bold appeal to the reason and feelings of our fellow-citizens. Neither titles, nor hereditary honors, nor crosses, nor ribbons, nor stars, nor garters, are permitted or endurable. Neither would they be accepted here were they offered. We had but two ways, as far as his knowledge then served him, of rewarding or acknowledging great displays of public virtue. One way is by pay in money; the other by thanks expressed by vote, or presented and perpetuated in some memorial, as in a medal. The first is unequal; as the fortunes of men differ, so would such reward not be equally valuable to all its objects; and were it practicable to apportion this reward agreeably to the fortunes of men, there is a something ill-assorted in it with the idea of honorable ambition; nor did he think there was any good man who had a spark of what is called sentiment in his bosom, who would not say the reward was not only lame for want of uniformity, but defective in point of taste in its species. He believed much in the sense of duty as a motive to good and reasonable services, and that an enlightened mind would feel the close alliance between interest and duty; but he held reward to be essential, politically considered, to the practice of great virtue, taking men as you find them. Not that money can be an adequate reward; it was therefore that he wished to see a style of acknowledgment derived both from the genius of the Government and congenial with the passions which work on the side of virtue—a mode as far removed from mere avarice as it was nearly associated to the movements of the most elevated minds. He readily yielded his belief that the gentlemen who were unwilling to adopt the practice fully admitted the merits to which they did not think it expedient to give a vote of thanks; but the precedent, founded expressly on the principle, that in no case of the greatest events are we to give thanks to the agents in them, will absolutely strip the Government of the only power its constitution admits of conferring deserved distinction. He thought that public gratitude was a great fund, which if judiciously and delicately economized, might be rendered a source of great and good actions. It is an honor both to the nation that can feel and express it, and to those who receive it. He did not think it ought to be lightly drawn on, and hoped a line which it was more easy to conceive than draw, would be adopted by the House to save the Legislature from those perilous occasions which would lessen its value, and that no member would ever move a vote of thanks but upon the happening of some event so strikingly great and useful as to carry but one opinion. The two events designated at present (for he saw both votes were to have one fate) were great, highly interesting, and carried but one opinion. The army under General Wayne had gained a brilliant victory. It was, he believed, the first great victory that had attended the arms of the United States since the adoption of the constitution. That army merited the thanks of their country, and we may say so. They had not only gained victory and fame, but had earned them in a solitude where the voice of fame could not be heard; in a profound wilderness, where neither the soothings of just ambition can reach them, nor the smiles of social and civilized life can comfort them after their severe labors.

The militia, both officers and men, in "quelling the insurrection," had displayed the wisdom and virtue which the constitution had anticipated; had eminently deserved the most public testimony to their good conduct. Shall we, as we certainly feel this to be true, be deterred from expressing what we feel, because the folly of a future moment may possibly betray us into an undue multiplication of thanks, or because we may be harassed by a fatiguing succession of calls upon our gratitude? There could be little fear that great events would crowd too fast upon our feelings, and take up our time by applause, and he believed his constituents would readily admit the importance of two such events as some excuse for the time we consume in celebrating them.

In favor of the principle, we are supported by the example of the old Congress, by the practice of all nations, and by the known character of human nature in all cases and everywhere. The ancients and the moderns, by a variety of inventions and of policy, analogous to our object, endeavored to enlist all the passions in the public service. The old Congress understood the springs that work in great events, and though there was in the glorious revolution which they guided, an ardor in the public mind that needed little aid, they did not disdain an appeal to the just pride and ambition of the individual; that the motives to public virtue might be multiplied, they in many instances took care that great events and services should be attended by some small but inestimable memorial.

Mr. Ames.—The apprehensions of the House have been attempted to be alarmed, as if they were pushed to adopt hastily and unguardedly some dangerous new principle. The practice of all public bodies, without exception, has been to express their approbation of distinguished public services. Instead of establishing a new principle, the attempt is now made to induce us to depart from an old one. Nay, the objection taken altogether is still more inconsistent and singular, for it is urged, the answer of the House to the President's Speech has already expressed our approbation of the conduct of General Wayne and his army. It is, say they, superfluous to express it again. The argument opposed to the vote of thanks stands thus: It is a dangerous new principle, without a precedent, and without any just authority from the constitution, to thank the army; for, the objectors add, we have in the answer to the Speech expressed all that is contained in the motion. It is unusual to quote precedent, and our own recent conduct, to prove a motion unprecedented, and to prove a measure new and dangerous because it has been adopted without question or apprehension heretofore.

It is simply a question of mere propriety; and is it a novelty, is it any thing to alarm the caution of the House, that such questions are always to be decided by feeling? What but the sense of propriety induces me to perform to others the nameless and arbitrary duties, and to receive from others the rights which the civilities and refinements of life have erected into laws? In cases of a more serious kind, is not sentiment the only prompt and enlightened guide of our conduct? If I receive a favor, what but the sentiment of gratitude ought to direct me in my acknowledgments? Shall I go to my benefactor and say, Sir, I act coolly and carefully; I will examine all the circumstances of this transaction, and if upon the whole I find some cause of gratitude, I will thank you. Is this gratitude or insult? The man who affects to hold his feelings, and his best feelings back for this cold-blooded process of reasoning, has none. He deceives himself, and attempts to deceive others, if he pretends to reason up or to reason down the impressions which actions worthy of gratitude and admiration make upon his heart. Was it necessary to wait for the joy and exultation which the news of the victory of General Wayne instantly inspired, till we could proceed with all due phlegm and caution to analyze it? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas) has not even yet received the impressions which are so natural and so nearly universal; for he has insisted that the army has only done its duty, and therefore it is improper to express our thanks. Indeed, it has done its duty, but in a manner the most splendid, the most worthy of admiration and thanks. That gentleman has also expressed his doubts of the very important nature of the victory, and one would suppose it was thought by many a very trivial advantage that is gained. It is such an one, however, as has humbled a victorious foe; as has avenged the slaughter of two armies; as gives us the reasonable prospect of a speedy peace. Can we desire any thing more ardently than a termination of the Indian war?

A soldier, of all men, looks to this kind of recompense for his services; and surely, to look to the approbation and applause of his country is one means of keeping alive the sentiments of citizenship, which ought not to be suffered to expire even in a camp. Shall we make it an excuse for refusing to pass this vote, that we establish the principle of thanking nobody? Is not this, as a principle, as novel, as improper, as that which alarms our opponents? And shall we establish it as a principle against the known practice of other assemblies and of this, and against the intrinsic propriety of the case, merely because we think our discretion will not be firm enough in future to prevent the abuse of the practice? Scarcely any abuse could have a worse influence than the refusal to adopt this vote, because, should the negative prevail, what would the army believe? Would they not say, a vote of thanks has been rejected? It is said we have not done much, and what we have done is merely our duty, for which we receive wages?

The debate has taken such a turn, that I confess I could have wished the motion had not been made. For the most awkward and ridiculous thing in the world is to express our gratitude lothly. But at least it offers to those who fear that votes of thanks will be too frequent, some security against their apprehensions. Would any man risk the feelings and character of his friend by an attempt to force a vote of thanks by a bare majority through the House? No, an ingenuous mind will shrink from this gross reward. If there is any force in the precedent it is feared we are now making, it will operate more to deter from than to invite the repetition.

Mr. Dearborn was in favor of the original motion. In addition to some remarks relative to the Republicanism of the idea of the Representatives of the people thanking the armies of the people for their prowess and victories, he compared the argument against the resolutions on the score of abuse to a miser's excusing himself from the practice of charity, lest he should bestow it on unworthy objects.

Mr. Rutherford was opposed to the previous question. He hoped the resolution of thanks would pass without a dissenting voice.

The previous question was now called for, by five members, viz: "Shall the main question to agree to the said resolution, be now put?" And

On the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 52, nays 36.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the said resolution, it was

Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of this House be given to the brave officers and soldiers of the legion under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their patience, fortitude, and bravery.

Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of this House be given to Major General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from the State of Kentucky, who have served their country in the field, during the late campaign, under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their zeal, bravery, and good conduct.

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit the foregoing resolutions; and that Mr. William Smith and Mr. Murray be appointed a committee to wait on the President therewith.

On motion of Mr. Murray,

Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of this House be given to the gallant officers and privates of the militia of the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, who, on the late call of the President, rallied round the standard of the laws, and, in the prompt and severe services which they encountered, bore the most illustrious testimony to the value of the constitution, and the blessings of internal peace and order; and that the President be requested to communicate the above vote of thanks in such manner as he may judge most acceptable to the patriotic citizens who are its objects.

Ordered, That Mr. William Smith and Mr. Murray be appointed a committee to wait on the President with the foregoing resolution.

Tuesday, December 9.

The Mint.

The House then took up the motion of Mr. Coit, relative to the Mint. The letter of Mr. Rittenhouse, referred to yesterday, was again read.

Mr. Boudinot drew the attention of the House for some time, by a series of the most interesting observations. He went to the Bank of the United States to inquire for cents. He was told that there were none to be had, because the Bank could not get them from the Mint. He then went to the Mint, where he was informed that cents were not coined faster because the officers of the Mint did not know where to get them vented! He said that this Mint cost twenty-four thousand dollars per annum, and every cent coined there cost the public several cents, though he could not exactly tell how many. In New Jersey far more cents had been coined in a few months than had ever been coined altogether at the Mint of the United States, and this had been done at one-fortieth part of the expense which the Mint of the United States has cost.

Several other members adverted to the prodigious inconvenience which is felt all over the Union for want of copper coin; and it appeared to excite some curiosity, on what foundation the officers of the Mint said that they could not get their cents vented. It was remarked by Mr. W. Smith that, except as to Philadelphia, the Mint is of little or no use whatever. The cents given out never go farther than the city.

A committee of three members were appointed to examine and report on the state of the Mint, and what means may be used to render the institution more beneficial to the United States.

Wednesday, December 10.

An engrossed bill making appropriations for the support of Government, for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, was read the third time, and passed.

Monday, December 15.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, John Page; and from North Carolina, Benjamin Williams, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Tuesday, December 16.

Pennsylvania Insurgents.

It was then moved and seconded that the House should go into a committee, on the report of the select committee, on that part of the President's Speech which recommended compensation to the sufferers by the insurgents in the Western counties. The House accordingly went into a committee, Mr. Cobb in the chair, and the report was read.

In the clause for making compensation to officers of Government, and other citizens, Mr. Nicholas was for striking out the three last words, and restricting indemnification to the officers of Government, as the additional words would make room for a set of claims which never could be satisfied or put to an end. It is now ascertained that the majority of the people of the four western counties have always been in favor of Government; but, since it is so, they ought to have suppressed the insurrection, and saved the expense of sending an army into that country. But as they did not do so, Mr. N. did not see what claim they had for compensation any more than the sufferers in the war with Britain.

Mr. Findlay thought that sound policy required an indemnification to the sufferers.

Mr. Hillhouse was in favor of the report of the committee as it stood. The whole affair was but a trifle. He understood that the damages done by the rioters did not altogether exceed twenty thousand dollars; and that three-fourths of this sum was for losses sustained by officers of the revenue. The rest of the account was for persons who had fought in defence of the officers or who had lodged and protected them. He observed that the whole of the select committee were of one mind upon the subject, and agreed in considering the other citizens as equally entitled to indemnification with the officers themselves.

Mr. Nicholas was still against the resolutions as originally worded. He did not see any proof of extraordinary attachment on the part of the claimants, nor any peculiar call on the justice of the House in this particular case.

Mr. W. Smith said, that one man had his whole property burned for having, at the hazard of his life, assisted in attempting to defend the house of the Inspector General. A second received the same treatment for having lodged an excise officer; and a third, because he had antecedently been one himself, though he had quitted his employment before the riots began. Mr. S. urged that these were certainly peculiar and pressing cases, and that it would be highly impolitic not to protect such people.

Mr. Gilbert hoped that there would be no discrimination, but that all the sufferers would be alike reimbursed.

Mr. Boudinot proposed a kind of compromise between the original resolution and the amendment by Mr. Nicholas. He proposed that the clause should read thus: "officers of the revenue, and other citizens aiding and assisting them." He was willing to indemnify persons who had actually suffered in defence of Government, but not other persons who might accidentally have been injured by the rioters.

Mr. Dayton was of opinion that some restriction of this sort was necessary. Citizens were in duty bound to support Government, but the latter was not in all cases bound to indemnify their losses. Let any person go through any part of the country wherever British soldiers had marched, and he would find thousands and tens of thousands of people whose property had been utterly destroyed by the wanton barbarity of these troops. Go to another part of the country and you will find people who suffered very considerably by the American soldiers, when Government did not give them an ounce of bread for pounds that they should have had. It was not possible to make satisfaction to all these people.

Mr. Sedgwick said it was extremely disagreeable to attempt detaining the committee with this subject, to which they discovered such general inattention, that he did not know if it had ever been equalled in any popular assembly before. He again adverted to an argument which he had used on a former day, viz: that when a private person, at the risk of his property and his life, comes forward to support the execution of the laws, his service was much more meritorious, and demonstrated a much greater degree of patriotism than that of a revenue officer who was paid for his share of the business. He inferred that the sufferers by the Western rioters should all be equally indemnified.

Mr. Hillhouse repeated some of his former reasons for wishing to discharge the whole claims. He was therefore against the qualified amendment of Mr. Boudinot.

Mr. Swift was against the amendment of Mr. Boudinot, because he was against giving, at present, any thing at all. He would suffer the persons who have sustained injury from these rioters and trespassers to prosecute them at law. If they cannot get any retribution in that way, then, and not sooner, you may begin to consider upon the propriety of giving any compensation; but till the parties aggrieved have done their utmost in that way, he would have no steps whatever taken of the nature proposed. It had been alleged that the House might advance money in the mean time to the sufferers, and leave them to their actions against the rioters. But if you pay a man for his damages, what security is there that he will follow up his suit; or, is it not evident that such previous compensation will greatly damp his ardor? Mr. S. said, that if previous notice were given of Government being ready to pay the damages, in case they could not be recovered before a court of law, there certainly never would be found a jury to bring a verdict against a private person. For this reason Mr. S. was entirely against the resolution at this time. What he might do hereafter, he would not say. There was only one case wherein he could be induced to advance money. If any of these persons could prove that they had been reduced by the rioters to such poverty that they were unable to prosecute their claims in a court of law, it might then perhaps be expedient to advance for them the expenses of the suit. But the interposition of the House at this period would affect the claims very greatly, and thus confer on the rioters themselves a favor which Mr. S. was very unwilling to bestow, as he would wish them prosecuted to the utmost. Before the meeting of next Congress, it might be ascertained what could be made of these prosecutions, and then, and not till then, Mr. S. would think it proper to enter on the discussion suggested by the report of the select committee.

Mr. Dexter drew a distinction between persons suffering by an open enemy, whose approaches they could not avoid, and those who suffer voluntarily. The claim for compensation was complete, and we should do the parties injustice if they did not receive full satisfaction.

Mr. Boudinot withdrew his amendment, under the idea that the particular cases would hereafter come before the House. The question therefore reverted to its former shape, shall the words "and other citizens" be struck out.

Mr. Dayton, in opposition to Mr. Dexter, considered the Government of the United States as more justly bound to make reparation to the people who suffered by the robberies and conflagrations perpetrated by British soldiers than to compensate the sufferers in the four Western counties; for those whose houses were burned, and whose property was destroyed by the British, had no quarter to which they could look for relief except to their own Government. The people to the Westward, on the contrary, had it in their power to prosecute the rioters, who were well able to pay them. Mr. Dexter had said that the losses of the persons ruined by the British were upon record. Perhaps, said Mr. Dayton, they will always be on record; but nobody supposes that we shall ever indemnify these losses. He thought it prudent for the present to restrict relief to the officers of Government alone.

The question was about to be put, on the amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholas to the first resolution in the report of the select committee, when Mr. Scott rose. He said, that if there had been a proposal devised to weaken the hands of Government in the four Western counties, there was no one thing which could have effected that point so completely as the striking out of these three words, "and other citizens." If gentlemen would only reflect for a moment, he would ask them how they thought it possible that any civil officer, after the adoption of such an amendment, would ever be able to raise a posse in that part of the country? Who would hereafter venture to defend the life of an excise officer, when the world has been told, that individuals do it at their own hazard, and cannot look to Government for any compensation? Who will hereafter admit an excise officer into his house, if that house may, with impunity, be burned about his ears? As soon as this amendment has gone abroad, every body, instead of assisting the officers of the revenue, will strive to keep out of their way, and have nothing to do with them. If there never had been any thing said about making a compensation to other citizens, perhaps there might have been little harm, or at least there would have been much less harm by forbearing to give them relief. But when the subject has been fairly brought forward by the President in his Speech, and when it had been debated at full length in this House, when so much notice had been attracted, and so many hopes have been thrown out, to give, in the face of all this, a direct negative, would be the most impolitic step that could possibly be thought of.

The committee then agreed to reject the amendment, and divided on the first resolution as it originally stood in the report of the select committee—yeas 46, nays 37.

The second resolution was then put for enabling the President to draw the sum of —— dollars for the relief of the sufferers—yeas 41, nays 37.

Mr. Smith then said, that seventeen thousand dollars had been mentioned in the committee as sufficient to pay the whole damages. He proposed to fill up the blank with eight or ten thousand dollars, on account, till they should see what was to be the final amount of the claims.

Mr. Hillhouse and Mr. Kittera both objected to this proposal. The committee rose. The Chairman reported that the committee had agreed to the report of the select committee without any amendment. The House were about to take up the report, when Mr. Sedgwick said, that he was really concerned at thinking that there could have been any division at all about such a thing. He still hoped that a measure might be adopted which would produce unanimity on the subject, and would have a much better effect than such a division.

The bill appropriating one million one hundred and twenty-two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine dollars and one cent for the expenses of the militia in the Western expedition, was read a first and second time, and referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

Wednesday, December 17.

Pennsylvania Insurgents.

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the select committee on that part of the President's Speech respecting compensation to the sufferers by insurgents in the Western counties in Pennsylvania. When the first of the two resolutions in the report was read, Mr. Swift objected to the granting of immediate indemnification, on much the same ground as he adopted yesterday in the Committee of the Whole. He inquired how a person, with a compensation from that House in his pocket, could appear in a Court of Justice to prosecute a rioter for damages, when the Judge, the jurors, and every one in Court knew he had been indemnified? He enlarged, at some length, on the great pity that it would be to let those rioters and rebels escape so; and, after they had cost Government above a million of dollars, that they should not be obliged to pay these sixteen or twenty thousand.

Mr. Lyman hoped that the House would give the money, and have done with the business.

Mr. Nicholas.—The more he considered this question, he was the more convinced that the House are involving themselves in embarrassment. Are you not told (said he, alluding to what had been urged by Mr. Swift) that, by paying these claims in the first instance, you are cutting the sinews of civil process? In any future commotion of this kind a person who has lodged an exciseman may have his house burnt from private spite against him, and not because he interfered in favor of a revenue officer. Then you are bound, by this precedent, to indemnify him; and how can you distinguish what was the real motive to that outrage? He believed it impossible ever to bring Government to such a state of perfection as that all losses suffered in defence of it should be indemnified at its charge. Where is the difference between this case and that of indemnifying the losses at sea by the British? Yet that proposal was rejected. Where is the gentleman who will say that he believes people will put themselves to the trouble of prosecuting, when they know that the money, if recovered, must go into your pockets again? Let us put the case, that a jury in the Western counties, where these points must be tried, shall find any of these people entitled to less than what you have bestowed upon them? Can you then recover the money back again? It is said that this resolution embraces but a few instances, and these of the most meritorious kind; but, in reality, it includes all citizens who have suffered. What will this comprehend, or, rather, what will it not comprehend? He supposed that the design was that the commissioners appointed by the President for that effect should be sent into the Western counties to ascertain the damages. Mr. N. concluded by declaring that nothing which he had heard could induce him to go to the extent proposed; and, by giving money at present, the prosecutions would all come to nothing.

Mr. Murray hoped the first resolution would succeed. He really thought that the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas) would extend to the exclusion of General Neville.

Mr. Madison remarked, that great respect was due to this proposition, both on account of the interesting occasion that produced it, and of the quarter from whence it came. But the more he revolved the subject in his mind, the more he was convinced that great circumspection was requisite, and that the House, for many reasons, ought to take as much time in deliberating upon what they ought to do as the nature of the subject will admit. He recommended the proposal of some gentlemen to let the affair lie over to next session.

It is no doubt proper to encourage a spirit for suppressing insurrections, and this measure is certainly calculated to promote that spirit. But, in his judgment, Mr. M. feared that it would likewise encourage insurrections. A great body of people were commonly engaged in such disturbances who were not worth hanging, and to whom an established Government usually held out an amnesty. By this means great multitudes came in, and received pardon before the operations of chastisement began. The mob, therefore, would in this case reason thus: As a crowd, we have a good chance to escape the gallows. Let us then plunder as fast as possible, because Government will disburse the loss, and we shall not be forced to disgorge our booty. Mr. M. thought that speculations of this kind might be entertained by future insurgents, if the House were instantly to vote a complete indemnification to the sufferers. Mr. M. held the highest respect for the arguments and feelings of gentlemen who espoused the other side of the question. What he himself had just now suggested, he did not regard as decisive considerations, but yet as considerations of weight. His own impression was to let the matter lie over till the next session, and then those who had done their best in prosecuting would come forward to that House to claim compensation under the most auspicious circumstances, and all which they shall have recovered will be saved to the State.

Mr. Boudinot differed in some degree from the gentleman who spoke last. He was for doing something at present, though not so much as was implied in the first resolution. He recapitulated the danger that would arise from slackening the efforts of people to prosecute the rioters. He entirely dissented from the principle laid down by some gentlemen, that Government was in all cases bound to indemnify the losses sustained by its citizens from foreign or domestic outrage. In the war with Britain there were great numbers of people who chose rather to fight it out to the last, and permit their houses to be burnt by the British troops, than accept of terms which they might have obtained. Mr. B. again proposed the amendment which he laid yesterday before the committee, viz: that after the words "and other citizens," there should be inserted, "personally aiding and assisting them." This he thought sufficient in the mean time.

Mr. Heath declared himself against the resolution as unsound policy. He feared that it may be an encouragement to future mischief. When an officer of the revenue finds that he is to be so easily paid—to be paid a double value for the burning of his house—will not this slacken his ardor in defence of it? Who has not heard of the rebellion of Shays, where a great deal of property was destroyed? People there began at the right end of the business. Lawsuits were commenced against the rebels, and damages were recovered. Pray, would it not be a proper bar to the recovery of damages in a court of law to say Government has paid you? Will not these people who suffered by the Tories in the last war come next, with open mouths, and demand indemnity? We shall next have those citizens who lately suffered by the pirates of Britain hastening to demand compensation. Mr. H. considered this as the most important question which had come before Congress during the present session. He concluded by saying that he would bear his testimony against this resolution.

Mr. Carnes was of the same opinion. Mr. Murray had said that it would be impossible to find a jury in the Western counties who would give honest damages against the rioters, because almost every body was on their side, and there would be no possibility of finding a jury who would pass an equitable verdict, unless recourse was had to the odious and execrable practice of packing juries. This remedy was worse than the disease; and from this Mr. Murray inferred the futility of compelling the sufferers to wait for the result of hopeless prosecutions, and the propriety of immediately paying the damages. Mr. Carnes asked the gentleman whether his knowledge as a lawyer did not inform him that an upright jury might be selected without having recourse to the infamous expedient of packing? When a jury were chosen, the prosecutors would be at liberty to except against them; and if they were either men of bad characters, or in any shape connected with the rioters, these exceptions would be admitted, and this process would go on till a respectable jury could be chosen. This was quite distinct from any thing like packing. He considered this explanation as a satisfactory answer to the arguments advanced by the member from Maryland; and he entertained a better opinion than that gentleman seemed to possess of the jurymen in the Western counties. Mr. C. foresaw many bad consequences that might possibly flow from this alacrity in discharging damages. What if there should be a collusive insurrection between two parties, and then, instead of twenty thousand dollars, we shall have to discharge a bill of perhaps an hundred thousand, or twice that sum? He considered it as good a plea in bar of prosecutions to say, Government has paid you. But if we are so fond of indemnifying people who suffer losses, the House may begin by satisfying the settlers in the back part of Georgia, where the Creeks within the last ten months only have done mischief to the extent of five or six hundred thousand dollars. He should be glad to hear the House disposed to indemnify these people, but it was what he did not expect. He could not see why these sufferers were not as much entitled to compensation as the others in the four Western counties. As to the Creeks, the State of Georgia was neither at war nor peace with them. Peace it was called, but in the mean time the savages were committing incessant murders. Reverting to the question before the House, Mr. C. said, that it would be most impolitic to proceed at present in the payment of these losses; and he was convinced that the President himself, when he made the reference in his Speech, did not intend that the thing should be acted on immediately. Mr. C. hoped that there would be a delay for the present session. The best way to ascertain the real extent of the damages was to leave the matter to the decision of a jury. When juries have determined this point, then, if the rebels cannot pay, give satisfaction to the sufferers in terms of the verdicts. The member from Maryland had said, that damages could not be accurately specified by a jury. Yes. If you pay nothing at present, but, if you pay at present, the action is barred. Mr. C. had not entirely formed his opinion on the question of compensation, but he was satisfied that it was better to make a delay.

Mr. Dexter, in reply to the supposition that this compensation would encourage future insurrections, gave it as his opinion that it would be the means of preventing them. An insurgent would say to himself, "I might escape from the prosecution of my neighbor, but, when the United States assist him, I cannot stand against both." Mr. D. conceived that the meaning of the resolution had been mistaken, and he placed the question in a light entirely new and unnoticed by any former speaker. Gentlemen had spoken as if the resolution went to the immediate and complete discharge of the whole damages, and upon this many arguments had been founded. This idea was an entire mistake, for the first resolution went only to ascertain the real extent of the damages, and did not pledge the House to pay the total amount of them. He considered this as a very material distinction, and which, in a great measure, obviated many arguments on the opposite side of the question. Mr. D. did not think, with the member from Georgia, that the same rule applied to the south-western settlers of that State and to parties in the present resolution. The people on the frontiers have "placed themselves in a place of danger knowingly." The Creeks were an open enemy, but the insurgents were an unexpected one. Mr. D. proceeded at great length to make a distinction between the two cases, and concluded by saying that the second resolution, which, as well as the first, he hoped would pass, went only to a temporary relief.

Mr. Hartley also placed a part of the question in quite a different light from any former gentleman. Since he had been a member of that House he had found occasion to read a good deal of law, and, from that knowledge of law, he had, yesterday, in the committee, informed the House that neither General Neville nor any body else could obtain damages against the rioters in a civil action. All the arguments, therefore, which had been advanced as to whether equitable damages could be recovered before a jury, proceeded upon an error, because no civil process whatever would lie in the case. If the House were disposed to doubt his own opinion, Mr. H. could now give them that of the first law officer in Pennsylvania. Since yesterday Mr. H. had consulted that gentleman, who gave it as his express opinion that the greater crime absorbs the lesser; that a case of this kind is only a criminal action, and that no penal damages can be recovered. The crime is liable to a capital punishment; he did not mean to death; but to such a degree of punishment as the offence should be found to deserve. Mr. H. added, that if people had known that they were to be indemnified for their losses by the United States, a much greater number would have stood by the law than did so. It was not the fear of personal danger which prevented people from resisting the insurgents; it was apprehension of having their barns burned down in the night time.

Mr. Dexter interrupted Mr. Hartley to inquire whether, by the laws of this State, the property of an insurgent is forfeited for his crime? Mr. Hartley replied that it was not. Mr. Dexter then remarked, that it was very absurd to say to a man, "You are an insurgent; you have committed a great deal of mischief, but you are so very deep an offender that I cannot recover damages." Mr. Hartley rose again to give some further explanation, when the Speaker announced that he had something to communicate to the House. Mr. Hartley sat down, and the Speaker said, that he had received from the President some important and confidential communications, which it was requisite to read in the House this day. It did not appear that they would decide on the first resolution at present, and there was not now more time left before the common hour of rising than would be necessary for reading the communications from the President. The debate was instantly deferred, and the galleries cleared.

Friday, December 19.

William Irvine, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Pennsylvania Insurgents.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported on Wednesday last, from the Committee of the whole House, on the report of the committee to whom was referred that part of the Speech of the President of the United States which relates to the policy of indemnifying the sufferers by the depredations of the insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania. Whereupon,

The first resolution being under consideration, in the following words, to wit:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the losses sustained by the officers of Government and other citizens, in their property, (in consequence of their exertions in support of the laws,) by the insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania."

The amendment of Mr. Boudinot, on which the House had been debating on Wednesday, was read. It was for the insertion, after the words "and other citizens," of the following addition: "personally aiding and assisting them."

Mr. Hartley then rose, and spoke as follows: I have no great encouragement to speak, when I find that my expressions and language have been totally mistaken, both by gentlemen in this House and by the person who frequently reports the debates. On Tuesday, I had ventured to say, that I thought no great reliance could be had upon the individuals injured obtaining satisfaction by personal actions against the insurgents; that I imagined the civil remedy was merged in the offence of arson against the State, or perhaps a higher offence; that, from the state of things, we could not promise ourselves that the sufferers would be compensated by civil suits.

On Wednesday, I mentioned to the House, that, though there had been much discussion, yet, as I considered part of the House to labor under what I held to be a mistake with respect to the lex loci, or law of the State, which we were obliged to take into view, I held it my duty to observe, that, the day before, I had said that I thought the smaller offence, that is, the civil injury, had been merged in the greater against society; that the offence, so far as related to the State, would be arson, which had been a capital offence, punishable with death, that the punishment had been mitigated by the alteration of the penal code, but still it was a felony. I noticed that I had formerly read law a good deal with considerable attention, but since I had been in Congress, I had not been able to bestow much time upon it. I said that formerly certain principles or maxims had made impression upon my mind; that, among others, was the one under consideration, that, in arson, the injury to the individual was merged in that against society, or, at least, must give way to the other; and public justice must be done in the first place. I mentioned that I had consulted one of the first law officers of the State, which is true, and he agreed with me in opinion. Indeed, he added, that no reliance should be had upon the personal remedy, but that compensation ought to be made to the sufferers.

I have no reason to change my former opinion. Really, when I consider the conduct of the commissioners to those who made their submissions, I should imagine it was the intention of the parties that there was to be an oblivion as well of the civil as the criminal offences to those who submitted; and, as the Legislature has the power to construe the agreement, it becomes her rather to do it with magnanimity than otherwise.

Your officers, and those aiding and assisting them, ought to be protected and supported. I will now say, as I did the other day, that the fear of having their houses or barns burned, terrified many a man in the Western country from joining the standard of the law, and forced him to temporize with rebellion. When the officers know that they are to be protected in their persons and property—when the posse comitatus are informed that they are to be regarded in like manner—we may expect energy in the execution of the laws. The law of Pennsylvania is defective, or at least doubtful; and, if the present punishment for arson continues, the Legislature of that State will, I dare say, point out a decided remedy for the party injured against the offender. It becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to protect and support the officers, and those aiding them. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment.

Mr. Venable differed entirely from the gentleman who spoke last. He understood that pardons extended only to the offences against Government. It would, for that reason, be no hardship against the people who had received pardons to prosecute them for civil damages; and, by the statement of the member himself, actions would lie where no public prosecutions had been made.

Mr. Swift was of opinion that the member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hartley) was most certainly mistaken in point of law, when he imagined that the pardon granted by the commissioners extended, or might be construed to a remission of civil offences. He did not believe it to be in the power of Government to pardon these rioters and trespassers to that length. He did not expect that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have stood up in the House to recommend an unqualified pardon. When a million of dollars had been expended, were the House to give them fifteen or twenty thousand dollars more? He did not come there prepared to hear of a premium for insurrection. He rejected all idea of so much tenderness for rioters and rebels.

Mr. Boudinot rejected all idea of the rioters being exempted from civil suits. There was but one exception, where they were executed for their crimes. He had no other view of the matter, but as a question of policy—whether it was expedient, or the contrary, to prosecute these people. He believed that, before the new constitution, the law stood as the member from Pennsylvania represented it. But all this was much from the purpose. By far the greater number of the rioters have accepted the amnesty. Nobody imagines them exempted from prosecution. To prevent any misconception of this nature, the commissioners, in the terms of pardon which they held out, expressly warned the people that they were to be liable to civil actions for the damages committed. It was needless, then, to embarrass the question with more difficulties than naturally belonged to it. He was satisfied that this was a mere question of policy, whether it was better to pay off these people at once, or let them first try the effects of civil actions.

Mr. Dayton rose and asked, "Who shall decide, when doctors disagree?" Who shall declare what is the law, when the learned gentlemen of the bar are so directly opposed to each other? The House (Mr. D. observed) had, by some means, imperceptibly, and, he thought, unnecessarily, been drawn into the discussion of a common law question. Law had been aptly compared to a bottomless pit, and the sooner, therefore, that they extricated themselves from it, the better. Very fortunately, (he said,) there existed no necessity for determining, in the present cases, upon any intricate point of law, as the proposals of amnesty, in their very terms, as well as in their nature, left each individual trespasser liable to suits at law on the part of the friends of good order, for the damages sustained by the one and done by the other. Mr. D. was for allowing those prosecutions to go forward, and was well informed, not only that there was far more than sufficient of the property of the insurgents to make compensation, but that it was probable they would agree together, and make up the whole among themselves, rather than be vexed by lawsuits. He could not agree with those gentlemen who expressed a wish to vote for the whole amount of damages, immediately to be paid from the Treasury. He did not believe with them, that such a measure would promote the dignity, or manifest the justice, of the Government. This would be to enter into an improper compromise with guilt. It would be to make peace with sedition, in a way that might tend to encourage rather than, to discourage it in future. We were obligated, upon principle and precedent, to ensure indemnity to those officers of Government, who, in consequence of a prompt and steady discharge of their duty, had suffered in their property from the resentment of the insurgents. But he wished not to do more, until the result of actions at law could be ascertained. Although the Government may offer a pardon for offences against the public, yet nothing was more clear than that the general amnesty did not, and could not, exempt the seditious offenders from answering to private persons for injuries done to them in their property.

Mr. Hartley rose to explain. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Swift) had mistaken his meaning. He was going on, when

Mr. Dayton rose, and declared that he had never put any such construction on the words of the gentleman, who certainly must have misapprehended him.

I did not mean you, sir, (said Mr. Hartley,) I said the gentleman from Connecticut. You made a mistake of the same kind with me last session.

The amendment of Mr. Boudinot was, on a division, lost—only twenty-six gentlemen rising when the question was called for.

The question on the first resolution was then called for; when it was moved to take the previous question, that is to say, "Shall the main question be now put?"

Mr. Fitzsimons rose. He thought that this discussion comprehended a principle of the most important nature. He trusted that it would not be got rid of in this way. He was not of opinion with those gentlemen who were disposed to waive the question just now, under the notion that they should have an opportunity of voting for it at another time. He believed that the true design of moving the previous question was to lay it aside altogether. This expedient should not answer the end; for, if he had only one other gentleman in the House to second him, he would stand by the matter until he obtained an explicit answer.

Mr. McDowell vindicated the propriety of taking the previous question.

Mr. Sedgwick said, that when the British carried on a most unjust war against this country, the Ministry who began it were in time turned out. Their successors had always reprobated the war, but, after the peace, they, notwithstanding, had expended several millions to support the loyalists. While the British had acted with so much liberality, did it become Americans to stick at the paltry sum of seventeen thousand dollars? The House had wrangled so long about this matter, that the very wages which they received for the time spent in this discussion would about have discharged the whole sum in dispute. When a wild, unprincipled, mad attempt had been made to destroy this noble constitution, were the Representatives of this people to make it a doubt whether those who saved it from, perhaps, destruction, were to be indemnified? Mr. S. declared that he felt more unpleasant sensations than he remembered ever to have experienced since he became a member of this House. Gentlemen might argue and argue about this drop in the bucket compared with the ocean. They might go into metaphysical deductions about whether the men who saved this constitution were, some of them, to be reduced to beggary and misery, as the price of having done so. He would bring up the question again and again, until he had the sense of the House again. Mr. S. repeated the following argument, which he, on a former day, had pressed. He asked whether persons who, from the pure, conscious dignity of the republican character, stepped forward to support the Government, did not deserve better of it than excise officers, who were bound to and paid for their services? He was even of opinion that the conduct of the private soldiers in this case was more meritorious than that of the officers. He might be mistaken, but his opinion was so. From this language it is not to be inferred that Mr. S. undervalued the exertions of the officers of the army, or of the excise. He only meant that the less interest or emolument which an individual has at stake in the success of an affair, the greater is his merit in performing it. He asked what better time there was than the present for settling the amount of these claims?

Mr. Heath was for the previous question. He thought the resolution unseasonable at this time. However little the gentleman chose to think of seventeen thousand dollars, they might grow into a precedent for seventeen hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. Boudinot thought that the seventeen thousand dollars were not the whole of the damages that might be claimed. When commissioners were sent to the Westward, the demand might rise to seventy thousand. Numerous other requisitions might start up. He was for taking the previous question.

Mr. Dexter regretted his necessity to differ from a gentleman (Mr. Boudinot) for whose opinions he was in the habit of entertaining the highest respect. He was against the previous question, because he disliked obliquity. Whether he was against or for the first resolution in the report of the select committee, he would give the resolution itself a fair meeting. He then inquired what better time there could be for learning the number and extent of the losses than the present? He again explained, as on Wednesday, that the House appeared to mistake the extent of the resolution, which did not imply any complete indemnification, nor even assure any relief at all. The whole amounted only to the taking of measures for obtaining information. He would not have voted for it, if he had thought that it promised complete indemnification. He thought that no future time could be so proper as the present for deciding.

Mr. Swift, Mr. Kittera, and Mr. Gilbert, also spoke.

Mr. Hillhouse went on the same ground with Mr. Dexter. He was one of the committee who drew up the resolutions. They never understood that the resolution implied an assurance of complete indemnity to the sufferers.

The previous question was called for by five members, to wit: "Shall the main question, to agree to the said resolution, be now put?"

And on the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 52, nays 31, as follows:

Yeas.—Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Gabriel Duvall, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Montgomery, Peter Muhlenberg, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Thomas Scott, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin Williams, and Richard Winn.

Nays.—Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, John Hunter, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston.

Mr. Gilbert then moved a resolution, the substance of which was understood to be to ascertain whether the losses in the Western counties were incurred in defence of Government, and how far the sufferers were capable to carry on the lawsuits themselves against the rioters.

Mr. Giles, was against the amendment, the resolution itself, and the whole mode of conducting the business. He had listened to many long speeches, and been surprised that no gentleman had made the observation which he was now going to submit to the House.

[The noise had by this time become so intense, that the Speaker rose and reminded the members of a rule that there must be no private conversation while a member addresses the Chair.]

Mr. G. then proceeded to declare that he disliked the form rather than the substance of the resolution. If people in the Western counties had suffered injuries, why should not they, as well as every other class of citizens, come to the bar of that House and petition? An inquest was, he imagined, intended, which would unite all the back country in one common interest against the Treasury of the United States. The mode proposed by the report of the select committee was the most exceptionable of all that could have been devised. It was said that this was only an affair of seventeen thousand dollars. What evidence have we that the demand will stop there? Sir, there is none. The mode is, besides, totally wrong. Let persons who have suffered come here in the usual manner. It is said that a gentleman has had his house burned. Let him come here and tell us so. Mr. G. entirely scouted the idea advanced by Mr. Dexter, that we might inquire into the extent of the losses, without a design to discharge them. If you do not mean to indemnify, why inquire at all? He did not object to relieving the sufferers, but, to erect a board of inquest, under Presidential direction, was what he never would consent to. He again repeated, that he did not mean to dissent from the principle, but from this most exceptionable of all modes for putting it into practice. Let people lay memorials of their losses before the House, which would then see distinctly what it was doing, and examine the evidence on which the claim was founded. He wondered that none of all the speakers in the debate had adverted to this distinction.

Mr. Hillhouse differed in every particular from the gentleman who spoke last. If petitioners come from the Westward, they are referred to a select committee. They bring all the evidence which they can muster to swell their bill. The committee have no counter-evidence, as we in this House almost never hear more than one of the parties. It is much better to send persons to the spot who can examine the subject on both sides, which we cannot possibly do, and who will be responsible to this House for their conduct. The whole arguments and ideas of Mr. H. were in direct contradiction to every thing advanced by Mr. Giles. He (Mr. H.) was satisfied that, before we undertook to pay the losses of the Western people, it was better, in the first place, to know the extent of them. The resolution amounted to nothing more than the ascertaining of this loss, and Mr. H. could see many good reasons for deferring the payment of a bill until he knew the sum to which it amounted. He could also see reasons why the mode recommended in the resolution was much preferable to that of bringing people so far to the House. Commissioners going to the spot could make themselves perfectly masters of the subject; whereas, if the parties come here, the matter will be decided on ex parte evidence, as it always is.

Mr. Boudinot considered the resolution as too loosely worded. A gentleman who had been on the expedition, and who had heard or read the report, observed to him (Mr. B.) that he himself came within the resolution, as he had suffered considerably in his business by his absence.

Mr. Hillhouse explained, that the resolution extended only to actual destruction. The committee never meant to compensate people for the loss which they had suffered by being banished. He was ready, if the House liked it better, to insert in the first resolution the words "property actually destroyed." This would prevent the misapprehension of the gentleman mentioned by Mr. Boudinot.

The House divided on the amendment of Mr. Gilbert—ayes 39, noes 33.

Mr. Hillhouse then moved to strike out the word "in" from the first resolution, and put into its place, "by the actual destruction of" their property.

Mr. Madison apprehended that this amendment left the resolution as bad as it was before, if not worse. A person in the Western counties had his horse stolen by the insurgents. But this did not imply the actual destruction or annihilation of the horse. The amendment meant either too much or too little. It certainly could be no improvement on the resolution.

After some further discussion, the amendment was agreed to.

And the main question being put, that the House do agree to the said resolution, amended to read as follows:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the losses sustained by the officers of Government, and other citizens, by the actual destruction of their property (in consequence of their exertions in support of the laws) by insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania; together with a report of the particular condition of the respective sufferers, in relation to their ability to prosecute their several claims, and recover, at law, satisfaction from the insurgent aggressors."

It was resolved in the affirmative.

The second resolution on the subject of indemnification was then taken up in the House.

Mr. Boudinot moved the following amendatory addition:

"To aid such of the sufferers as, in his (the President's) opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be directed by law."

The amendment was carried, forty-four gentlemen rising.

The resolution, as amended, is as follows:

"Resolved, That the President be authorized to draw out of the Treasury of the United States the sum of —— dollars, to be applied by him to aid such of the said sufferers as, in his opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be directed by law."

Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Lyman, Mr. Watts, and Mr. William Smith, do prepare and bring in the same.

Friday, December 26.

Two other members, to wit: Jeremiah Wadsworth, from Connecticut; and Samuel Smith, from Maryland, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Naturalization Bill.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the bill to amend the act, entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

Mr. Giles proposed to amend the intended test of a citizen, by adding, after "two witnesses giving evidence as to his moral character," these words: "attached to a Republican form of Government." He thought this test proper, to prevent those poisonous communications from Europe, of which gentlemen were so much afraid.

Mr. Dexter preferred saying, "attached to the Constitution of the United States."

To this amendment Mr. Giles had little or no objection.

Mr. Boudinot did not see the use of either amendment. It was only giving unnecessary trouble. The oath which the person himself must take, was sufficient for expressing his fidelity to the Government of this country.

Mr. Nicholas considered both the amendment, and the clause to which it was annexed, as unnecessary; and even if in themselves proper, they were misplaced. He thought both equally superfluous. They should have been inserted in the oath of allegiance of the man himself.

Mr. Dayton hoped that the whole clause would be rejected. He should be against it, unless the nature of the evidence was referred to a Court of Justice. He foresaw many difficulties arising to poor men in attempting to get two such witnesses. It might suit extremely well with merchants and men of large capital, who had, he supposed, been alluded to the other day, under the title of meritorious emigrants. He was not so anxious for them as for useful laboring people, who, as he thought, would be more likely to do good. This class, however, had never, it was likely, troubled their heads about forms of Government. He further objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, that the word Republican was entirely equivocal. This title was assumed by many Governments in Europe, which were upon principles entirely different from ours. Some of them, such as Poland, had been Aristocracies of the most hideous form.

Mr. Dexter hoped that the amendment of Mr. Giles would not pass, [Mr. Giles had, as before noticed, consented to withdraw it;] not so much for the sake of the principle, as of the language in which it was expressed. The word Republican implied so much, that nobody could tell where to limit it. Why use so hackneyed a word? Many call themselves Republicans, who, by this word, mean pulling down every establishment: they were mere Anarchists.

Mr. Hillhouse was equally against the clause and amendment. Mr. Dexter and Mr. Giles previously declared themselves extremely doubtful whether they should even vote for the clause, when amended in their own way.

Mr. Giles felt himself extremely surprised to hear it asserted on the floor of Congress, that the words "Republican form of Government" meant any thing or nothing. He read a passage from the constitution, whereby a Republican form of Government is guaranteed to each of the United States composing the Union. He should, therefore, have imagined that the words were well understood from one end of the Continent to the other. He did not expect such criticism. He was not sure if he should vote for the clause at all; but if he did so, he should wish the best to be made of it. He then altered his amendment to these words: "attached to the principles of the Government of the United States."

Mr. Dayton.—With all the ambition of that gentleman (Mr. Giles) to be called a Democrat, both he and Mr. D. would more properly be called Republicans. He again vindicated his assertion as to the equivocal meaning of the word. A Venetian or Genoese might come to this country, and take the oath as proposed, and then excuse himself by saying, "it was the Republican form of my own country which I had in view." One of the best writers on the British Constitution had called that also a Republic.

Mr. Madison was of opinion that the word was well enough understood to signify a free Representative Government, deriving its authority from the people, and calculated for their benefit; and thus far the amendment of his colleague was sufficiently proper. Mr. M. doubted whether he himself should, however, vote for the clause, thus amended. It would, perhaps, be very difficult for many citizens to find two reputable witnesses, who could swear to the purity of their principles for three years back. Many useful and virtuous members of the community may be thrown into the greatest difficulties, by such a procedure. In three years time, a person may have shifted his residence from one end of the Continent to the other. How then was he to find evidence of his behavior during such a length of time? But he objected to both amendments on a different ground. It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion, because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support this Government as he finds it.

Mr. Hillhouse then proposed as an amendment, to insert, that "evidence should be produced to the satisfaction of the Court."

Mr. Dexter mentioned the abuses that have happened in the present form of admitting citizens. He did not comprehend the argument of Mr. Dayton, that it would be more easy for a rich than for a poor man to get evidences to swear to his having resided in the country. If he had not, the fact was of a notorious nature. It would likewise be as easy for a poor man, as for a rich one, to get an attestation of his character. The point of residence was, in itself, but little. A man may have resided here for a long time, and defrauded the citizens, which would be no recommendation.

Several other gentlemen spoke. The resolution finally passed.

The second resolution produced a long conversation, in the course of which Mr. Murray declared that he was quite indifferent if not fifty emigrants came into this Continent in a year's time. It would be unjust to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that, coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American character.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

Monday, December 29.

Naturalization Bill.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the bill to amend the act entitled, "An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

The motion before the committee, made by Mr. Venable, when they broke off the last discussion, had been to strike the word "moral" out of this amendment: "good moral character." These three words, altogether, were an addition of what was to be attested by the witnesses for a candidate to admission as a citizen.

Mr. Dexter opened the debate on the amendment of Mr. Venable to the amendment by saying, that he wished to hear the reasons for it.

Mr. Nicholas said, that he did not make the motion, but his colleague, who had made it, thought that the insertion of the word "moral" gave too strict an air to the sentence. This word might be hereafter implied to mean something relative to religious opinions.

Mr. Sedgwick remarked, that if no better reason than that advanced by Mr. Nicholas could be given for striking out the word "moral," he could not agree to it. Moral is opposed to immoral, but has no particular reference whatever to religion, or whether a man believes any thing or nothing. It has no reference to religious opinions. We can every where tell, by the common voice of the world, whether a man is moral or not in his life, without difficulty. In some States of the Union, adultery is not punishable by law, yet it is every where said to be an immoral action. It is too nice to make a distinction between a good character and a good moral character. The word good itself is very equivocal in its meaning. It signifies any thing, every thing, or nothing. A good companion is one thing; a good man, as applied to wealth, conveys a different sense; and so on.

Mr. B. Bourne considered the amendment itself and the motion of Mr. Venable to strike out the word "moral," as equally useless.

Mr. Murray hoped that the word would not be struck out. This would be the greatest slander ever cast upon the American character. It would excite the surprise of foreign nations.

Mr. Venable had thought the wording of the phrase too strict; but rather than have any further dispute, he withdrew his motion for striking out the word "moral."

The clause was then read as amended.

Mr. Gilbert thought that the term of residence, before admitting aliens, ought to be very much longer than mentioned in the bill. The Chairman informed him that the term in the bill was left blank.

Mr. Sedgwick agreed to the idea of Mr. Gilbert. He wished that a method could be found of permitting aliens to possess and transmit property, without, at the same time, giving them a right to vote. He did not know if the constitution authorized such a thing.

After some further conversation, the clause passed. The third resolution in the report was then read; which was, that if an American citizen chose to expatriate himself, he should not be allowed to enter into the list of citizens again without a special act of Congress, and of the State from which he had gone.

Mr. Madison did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to them to admit aliens.

Mr. Sedgwick was very willing, for his part, that citizens who had once expatriated themselves should never be readmitted again.

The committee, on two successive motions to that effect, from Mr. Madison and Mr. Giles, rose. The Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again, which was granted.

Wednesday, December 31.

Lemuel Benton, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Thursday, January 1, 1795.

Naturalization Bill.

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole House, to the bill to amend the act entitled, "An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

The House went through the report of the committee, and agreed to the amendments.

Mr. Giles then rose to make his promised motion as to the exclusion of any foreign emigrant from citizenship who had borne a title of nobility in Europe till he had formally renounced it. He proceeded to observe that, agreeably to the spirit of the constitution, we ought to have the strongest possible evidence that people of this description have renounced all pretence to a right of this nature, before we admit them into the bosom of society. Moderation had been recommended. He requested gentlemen to observe that he conducted his motion on the strictest principles of moderation. He had, in a former part of this bill, voted for some clauses which were intended to guard the Government against any disturbance from the people called Jacobins, when their principles should run to a dangerous and seditious extreme. The same spirit of candor and moderation which had induced him to vote for a precaution against the attempts of the one party, now led him to propose a precaution against the prejudices of the aristocrats, which were, upon the whole, more hostile to the spirit of the American constitution than those of their antagonists. He also requested gentlemen to observe that his present motion went not to the invasion of any positive right. It left the individual exactly where it found him, unless he aspired to be an American citizen. Otherwise, he might retain his titles undisturbed as long as he pleased. But if he wanted any promotion of a civil nature in this country, he must rise to it by conforming exactly to the rules laid down by the constitution itself. That code had declared no titled character admissible to any civil rank. It was not to be supposed that people born and nurtured in the lap of aristocracy would heartily renounce their titles, and become all at once sincere Republicans. It was, therefore, highly improper that such people should be admitted. If we are allowed to anticipate probabilities, it seems highly probable that we shall soon have a great number of this kind of persons here. A revolution is now going onward, to which there is nothing similar in history. A large portion of Europe has already declared against titles, and where the innovations are to stop, no man can presume to guess. There is at present no law in the United States by which a foreigner can be hindered from voting at elections, or even from coming into this House; and if a great number of these fugitive nobility come over, they may soon acquire considerable influence. The tone of thinking may insensibly change in the course of a few years, and no person can say how far such a matter may spread. After these, and other prefatory remarks, Mr. G. read a resolution, which was in effect as follows:

"And in case any alien applying for admission to citizenship of the United States, shall have borne any title or order of nobility in any Kingdom or State from whence he may come, he must renounce all pretensions to his title before the court in which such application shall be made; and this renunciation must be registered in the said court."

Mr. G. observed, that previous to the late revolution, the French nobility were, by the lowest calculation, rated at twenty thousand; and as we may conclude on France being successful, a great proportion of these people may be finally expected here.

Mr. Dexter declared that he was not very anxious against the resolution. He, however, opposed it. He imagined that, by the same mode of reasoning, we might hinder his Holiness the Pope from coming into this country. He entered at some length into the ridicule of certain tenets in the Roman Catholic religion, and said that priestcraft had done more mischief than aristocracy.

Mr. Madison said that the question was not perhaps so important as some gentlemen supposed; nor of so little consequence as others seem to think it. It is very probable that the spirit of Republicanism will pervade a great part of Europe. It is hard to guess what numbers of titled characters may, by such an event, be thrown out of that part of the world. What can be more reasonable than that when crowds of them come here, they should be forced to renounce every thing contrary to the spirit of the constitution. He did not approve the ridicule attempted to be thrown out on the Roman Catholics. In their religion there was nothing inconsistent with the purest republicanism. In Switzerland, about one-half of the Cantons were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. Some of the most democratical Cantons were so; Cantons where every man gave his vote for a representative. Americans had no right to ridicule Catholics. They had, many of them, proved good citizens during the Revolution. As to hereditary titles, they were proscribed by the constitution. He would not wish to have a citizen, who refused such an oath.

Mr. Page was for the motion of his colleague. It did not become that House to be afraid of introducing democratical principles. Titles only gave a particular class of men a right to be insolent, and another class a pretence to be mean and cringing. The principle will come in by degrees, and produce mischievous effects here as well as elsewhere. If such men do come here, nothing can be more grateful to a Republican than to see them renounce their titles. This does not amount to any demand of making them renounce their principles. If they do not aspire to be citizens, they may assume as many titles as they think fit. Equality is the basis of good order and society, whereas titles turn every thing wrong. Mr. P. said that a scavenger was as necessary to the health of a city as any one of its magistrates. It was proper, therefore, not to lose sight of equality, and to prevent, as far as possible, any opportunities of being insolent. He did not want to see a duke come here and contest an election for Congress with a citizen.

Mr. Sedgwick was really at a loss to see what end this motion could answer. He agreed with the arguments of Mr. Giles. But the point in view was explicitly provided for already. By taking an oath of citizenship, the individual not only renounces but solemnly abjures nobility. The title is destroyed when the allegiance is broken by his oath being taken to this Government. This abjuration has destroyed all connection with the old Government. Why then provide for it a second time?

Mr. Giles said, that by admitting a thing to have been once done, it was admitted that it might be done again. If it had been right to do it once, there could be no harm in repeating it. The member then quoted Mr. Dexter, who rose and declared that the gentleman had misunderstood him. He spoke for some time, and when he sat down—

Mr. Giles declared himself incapable of comprehending whether Mr. Dexter was for his motion or against it. He therefore proceeded to reply to Mr. Sedgwick, whose chief argument had been that the thing was provided for already. He did not suppose that this gentleman would allege the matter to be explicitly provided for. It only could be so by implication; which was a very bad way of making a law, because it gave room for endless disputes. If the thing is in itself right, why refuse to vote directly for it? Why leave it only to be implied? He wished to let foreigners know expressly the ground upon which they stood. Why not tell them at once, and in plain English, you must renounce your titles before you can have the privileges of an American citizen? Mr. G. pressed home this idea more than once. He meant no act of inhospitality to these emigrants. He would deprive them of no right, nor do any thing unkind to them. But he was entitled, by the spirit of the constitution, to withhold this right from them till they renounced all hereditary titles. This was no incivility. He concluded by declaring that he would, if supported, call for the yeas and nays on this question. A number of members rose to support this proposal.

Mr. Nicholas had no objection to the motion, but that it did not go far enough. The emigrants ought to be obliged to swear not only that they abjured all titles hitherto received, but that they would never accept of any in future. He believed that this would hurt their feelings, and, sympathizing with them, he would not urge a proposal that might add to their distress, but should vote for the motion as it stood.

Mr. Scott was sorry that so much time had been spent on the motion. We are not by the constitution authorized to make titles; and he apprehended that if it was unlawful to manufacture a commodity at home, it was unlawful to import it from abroad. On this account he was for the resolution. If once we allow the thing to be manufactured at all, he had no doubt but titles would be as prevalent here as in Britain. He should think it very odd to see a man sitting opposite to him in that House, with a star and garter on his breast. The emigrant was as welcome to wear them as to wear his hat. Only let him wear them out of doors.

Mr. Tracy thought that more time had been spent upon the subject than it was worth. He mentioned the proceedings of the French Convention, who, some time before they cut off the head of the Duke of Orleans, debated four days upon what name they should give him, and at last called him Egalité. He feared that calling for the yeas and nays thus early would look like party, as if intended to cast an odium on gentlemen who should vote against the motion.

Mr. Dexter would vote for the resolution, if the gentleman would agree to an amendment; which was, that he renounced all possession of slaves.

Mr. Thatcher moved as a second amendment, "and that he never will possess them."

The words of Mr. Dexter's amendment were nearly these: "And also, in case any such alien shall hold any person in slavery, he shall renounce it, and declare that he holds all men free and equal."

Mr. Giles said, that he should begin to think his motion of very peculiar importance, if such extraordinary resources were adopted to disappoint it. He was sorry to see slavery made a jest of in that House. He understood this to be intended as a hint against members from the Southern States. It had no proper connection with the subject before the House. He had therefore no scruple in voting against it. It was calculated to injure the property of gentlemen. As to slavery, he lamented and detested it; but, from the existing state of the country, it was impossible at present to help it. He himself owned slaves. He regretted that he did so, and if any member could point out a way in which he could be properly freed from that situation, he should rejoice in it. The thing was reducing as fast as could prudently be done. He believed that slavery was infinitely more deprecated in countries where it actually existed, and consequently where its evils were known, than in other countries where it was only an object of conversation. Gentlemen had objected to calling for the yeas and nays. Have not the public a right to know the sentiments of the House on every question? Was it any unusual thing to call for the yeas and nays? Or was there any use for it but that the sentiments of every member might be known?

Mr. Madison mentioned regulations adopted in Virginia for gradually reducing the number of slaves. None were allowed to be imported into the State. The operation of reducing the number of slaves was going on as quickly as possible. The mention of such a thing in the House had in the mean time a very bad effect on that species of property, otherwise he did not know but what he should have voted for the amendment of Mr. Dexter. It had a dangerous tendency on the minds of these unfortunate people.

Mr. Nicholas said, that Mr. Dexter had more than on one occasion hinted his opinion that possessors of slaves were unfit to hold any Legislative trust in a Republican Government. He was solicitous that before Mr. D. spoke on a subject, he would make himself in some degree acquainted with it. He ought to acquire some information as to the state of the country, otherwise his opinion would fall into contempt with those who knew it. Mr. N. said, that gentlemen who possessed a thousand slaves in Virginia had no more influence on their neighbor who had not one than that neighbor had on them.

Mr. Dexter complained of the attempt to take the yeas and nays, as a design to hold up certain people to public odium. He would withdraw his amendment if the gentleman would withdraw his motion.

Mr. Sedgwick rose in some warmth. He said that there was no design in calling for the yeas and nays but to fix a stigma upon gentlemen in that House as friends to a nobility, when they were no such thing, and to raise a popular odium against them. To propose an abolition of slavery in this country would be the height of madness. Here the slaves are, and here they must remain.

A question of adjournment was now carried by 43 against 29. So the motion of Mr. Giles stands over till to-morrow.

Friday, January 2.

Naturalization Bill.

The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported on Wednesday last from the Committee of the whole House to the bill to amend the act entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Whereupon,

The amendment moved yesterday to the said bill being under consideration, in the words following, to wit:

"And in case any such alien applying for admission to become a citizen of the United States, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, in addition to the requisites of this, and the before recited act, he shall make an express renunciation of his title, or order of nobility, in the Court to which his application shall be made, before he shall be entitled to such admission; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said Court."

A motion was made and seconded to amend the said amendment, by adding to the end thereof the words following, to wit:

"And, also, in case such alien shall, at the time of his application, hold any person in slavery, he shall in the same manner renounce all right and claim to hold such person in slavery."

On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment to the amendment,

Mr. Bourne said he was against both amendments. He saw no use either for the one or the other. He recapitulated the numerous checks which the constitution had framed against nobility getting into it. He, therefore, with all these checks, could see no danger from it. So much for the expediency of the proposal. He next considered it in a different point of view. A foreigner comes, perhaps with a title, which he has derived from a long train of ancestors, and, with a very pardonable infirmity, he is fond, he is perhaps proud, of his badge of nobility. Is it polite, is it generous, to force him to renounce it? If it is an hereditary title, he can renounce only for himself. His children shall inherit the right. Mr. B. wished both amendments withdrawn.

Mr. Rutherford said, the people of America had an exceeding aversion to the bubble of nobility. He had so much confidence in the wisdom, good sense, and public spirit, of the gentlemen in this House, that he was sure the amendment would be carried by a very great majority. He was equally certain that the amendment of the other gentleman (Mr. Dexter) would be rejected. It went to wound the feelings and alienate the affections of six or eight States in the Union. He was against the yeas and nays. He wished for a silent vote.

Mr. McDowell.—When the gentleman from Massachusetts first brought forward the motion on the table, Mr. McD. could not think he was sincere, from the idea which he had formed of the candor and good sense of that gentleman. But, much to his surprise, Mr. D. persisted in supporting the propriety of his motion, which is not only an indirect attack on the State Governments, but even on the constitution of the United States, and on the members of this House who represent the Southern States. This amendment not only tends to irritate the minds of members, but of thousands of the good citizens in the Southern States, as it affects the property which they have acquired by their industry. Thus it cools their affections towards the Government, as they will find that one part of the Government is about to operate on their property in an indirect way. The gentleman dare not come directly forward, and tell the House, that men who possess slaves are unfit for holding an office under a Republican Government. Mr. McD. recalled to the mind of the House the conduct of the people that compose the Southern States, during the late war, and their struggle for American Independence. He then bade the House review the behavior of their Representatives, under the present Government, and say whether they do not partake more of the Republican spirit than the members from the Eastern States. The latter, also, no doubt had members who did honor to the States which they represented, and to the United States. He thought the amendment of Mr. Dexter partook more of monarchical or despotic principles than any thing which he had seen for some time. What right had the House to say to a particular class of people, you shall not have that kind of property which other people have? This was the language of the motion, and he considered it as highly unjust. Mr. McD. wished the gentleman to consider what might be the consequence of his motion, at this time, when the West Indies are transformed into an immense scene of slaughter. When thousands of people had been massacred, and thousands had fled for refuge to this country, when the proprietors of slaves in this country could only keep them in peace with the utmost difficulty, was this a time for such inflammatory motions? He was amazed that a gentleman of whom he had so high an opinion, could, for a moment, embrace an idea which was, in all points of view, so extremely improper and dangerous.